President Trump on Wednesday proposed sharp reductions in individual and business income tax rates and a radical reordering of the tax code that would significantly benefit the wealthy, but he offered no explanation of how the plan would be financed as he rushed to show progress before the 100-day mark of his presidency.

Here’s the question: so what? Why would people keeping more of their own money so they can do things like invest more in their business, use profits to pay their workers work rather than having to give it to the government, and simply have more of the money from the fruit of their hard work? Why is this a concern? Oh, right, Leftists have been taught to hate The Rich, even though most of their leaders are The Rich. How many of them love Rachel Maddow? She makes around $8 million a year for her MSNBC show.

The proposal envisions slashing the tax rate paid by businesses large and small to 15 percent. The number of individual income tax brackets would shrink from seven to three — 10, 25 and 35 percent — easing the tax burden on most Americans, including the president, although aides did not offer the income ranges for each bracket.

Wait, it would “ease the tax burden on most Americans”? I thought this was only about helping out The Rich? No?

Mr. Trump wants to double the standard deduction for individuals, essentially eliminating taxes on around $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. That proposal was met with alarm by home builders and real estate agents, who fear it would disincentivize the purchase of homes. The proposal would scrap most itemized deductions, such as those for state and local tax payments, a valuable break for taxpayers in Democratic states like California and New York.

That’s an interesting paragraph. First, we see it helping out the middle and lower classes. Second, compare it to the draft that Hot Air used of the article

The Trump administration would double the standard deduction, essentially eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. It also called for the elimination of most itemized tax deductions but would leave in place the popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has railed against for years, would be repealed under his plan.

They apparently had to make the plan more scary by removing the section about keeping the mortgage interest deduction and charitable contributions. In fact, according to Newsdiffs, there have been 10 versions of this same story, including headline changes. The 9:44pm change was virtually a complete rewrite.

People who still fill out their tax returns by hand. Administration officials said the plan would simplify paying taxes, particularly emphasizing plans to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. The A.M.T. can definitely be annoying, and costly, but if you use an online tax preparation service, the software does most of the work.

So, mostly middle and lower income who do not have massive amounts of itemization.

And losers

Upper-middle-income people in blue states. The plan would eliminate the federal tax deduction for state and local income tax. If you are in a place where such taxes are high, like New York or California, you would lose a valuable deduction.

That says more about the taxation issues in those states. And

Deficit hawks. The Trump plan doesn’t come with any estimates of its impact on the federal deficit. But his campaign plan, to which the new document is distinctly similar, was estimated by the analysts at the Tax Policy Center to reduce federal revenue by $6.2 trillion over a decade. That implies either a very large increase in the national debt or huge reductions in federal spending.

Well, what has been seen by previous cuts is that more money flows into the government coffers because economic activity increases. But, this should be still paired with not only a reduction in federal spending, starting with a majority of non-essential things and waste, but a reorganization of how money is allocated and spent to reduce necessary spending waste.

For instance, here’s how this often works. An agency was allocated $1 billion last year. This year, they ask for $1.3 billion. Congress says “well, you were very good in spending all your money last year, so, we’ll give you $1.1 billion.” What’s unsaid, though, is that the agency pissed away $200 million because their true operating costs were only $800 million, so, they overpaid for things, they spent it on unneeded things, they overpaid contractors, overpaid bonuses, and so forth. They paid on cost over-runs for contractors, even though a contractor said they would do X for a specific amount of money. They paid for research on shrimp on treadmills.

Instead, the agency is given $700 million and told to get lean, do more with less, just like happens in the private sector. If they truly need more for an emergency, there would be a method to do so. They would have to truly prove that they need the initial money, though.

Regardless, the last people who should be complaining about deficits and the debt are Democrats.

Of the 5.5 trillion in cuts, 2/3rds go to corporations. 1.8 trillion goes to individuals, half by increasing the standard deduction, half (ostensibly) by changing brackets. Part of this 1/3 for individuals goes to working stiffs, much to the wealthy (eliminate Estate Tax, cut top rate etc).

trumpy’s Goldman-Sachs plan intentionally punishes citizens in high state tax blue states like CA, NJ and NY, by eliminating fed deductions for state taxes. Note too that these states pay MORE to the feds than they take, as opposed most red states which rely on the blue states for support. TEACH claims:

That says more about the taxation issues in those states.

No. It says more about trump punishing blue states. Clearly the citizens in those states are not fleeing and appreciate the services supplied by their taxes and do not complain (much) about supporting the less economically successful red states. Obviously a better approach would be to cut regressive state taxes and make up the difference with progressive federal taxes but that would increase the burden on the true conservative base (the wealthy).

The NY Times should never be believed, about anything. They’re nothing more than the public relations wing of the democrat party.

As for it being a tax cut for the wealthy, no kiddin.
How the heck can you cut federal taxes for the lower income levels when they don’t pay any federal taxes in the first place. The Tax Policy center claims that 45.3% pay no federal taxes.

And as far as it affects blue states…even though I live in Ma I’m all for it. Most blue states are tax hell for people living in them. They love their taxes. Le them deal with it.

William Teach: Trump’s Tax Plan Is, Unshockingly, Deemed A Tax Cut For The Rich By Media

While the U.S. tax system certainly needs an overhaul, to pretend that you can cut taxes without somehow making up the difference through other taxes or with cuts in spending means the vaguely-defined proposal is not substantive.

While Trump has proposed cuts in spending in some areas of the budget, he wants to increase it elsewhere. So, no. He is not proposing spending cuts, much less on a level necessary to compensate for his proposed tax cuts. Of course, part of the problem is that he hasn’t actually proposed a specific tax cut plan, so there’s a lot of guesswork involved with the numbers.

Hank_M: More importantly, look at the JFK tax cuts and their results.

Kennedy’s tax plan was generally Keynesian, as a means to stimulate demand. Also, with very high marginal tax rates, there was a large incentive to avoid taxable income. Marginal tax rates are much lower today, so while there would be some benefit in terms of lowering tax avoidance, the advantage would be much less than at that time. Furthermore, federal debt was much lower then.

Kennedy’s tax plan was generally Keynesian, as a means to stimulate demand. Also, with very high marginal tax rates, there was a large incentive to avoid taxable income. Marginal tax rates are much lower today, so while there would be some benefit in terms of lowering tax avoidance, the advantage would be much less than at that time. Furthermore, federal debt was much lower then.

Keynesian economics holds that governments ought to run deficits when the economy is bad, but balance their budgets and pay down their debts during good times. Trouble is, we have run deficits during bad times and good: deficits are no longer Keynesian stimulus, but standard operating procedure. We are, in effect, stimulating the economy all the time, to the point where I believe we have inoculated the economy to the effects of further stimulus.

Dana: Keynesian economics holds that governments ought to run deficits when the economy is bad, but balance their budgets and pay down their debts during good times. Trouble is, we have run deficits during bad times and good

That does seem to be the case. Indeed, the Bush Administration engaged in strongly procyclical policy, which only exasperated the market bubble.

But it is not inevitable. The last time the budget was in the black was during the Clinton Administration, and there’s no reason the U.S. can’t handle their current debt load. It will take some discipline. That means either cutting spending or raising taxes or both. Instead, the impetus seems to be for cutting taxes without regard to spending.

YE OLDE ADVERTS

Categories

Calendar

Meta

Blog Stats

5,971,460 hits

THE CODE

All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.

NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.